be done easier, but later on the geometry will change and therefore this seems the better option. But coming back to the problem
First, there were some problems concerning the zone, although it seems solved still the “runenergysimulation” gives the following warning:
1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error:
** Severe ** UpdateZoneSizing: Cooling supply air temperature (calculated) within 2C of zone temperature
Do one of you know what went wrong? It probably will solve most of it.
Second, “set Zone Thresholds” gives the following warning:
1. Solution exception:global name 'maxHumidity_' is not defined
However, the component is missing the max humidity input on the list, has this to do something with the error?
All the components are up to date.
I hope it will be an easy fix.
Gr Lars
“set Zone Thresholds” runtime error
{0;0;0}0. Runtime error (UnboundNameException): global name 'maxHumidity_' is not defined1. Traceback: line 80, in checkTheInputs, "<string>" line 282, in script
"runenergysimulation” report
{0;0}0. Current document units is in Meters1. Conversion to Meters will be applied = 1.0002. TypeError('Waarde kan niet null zijn.\r\nParameternaam: source',)3. Failed to copy the object. Returning the original objects...This can cause strange behaviour!4. [1 of 8] Writing simulation parameters...5. [2 of 8] No context surfaces...6. [3 of 8] Writing geometry...7. [4 of 8] Writing Electric Load Center - Generator specifications ...8. [5 of 8] Writing materials and constructions...9. [6 of 8] Writing schedules...10. [7 of 8] Writing loads and ideal air system...11. [8 of 8] Writing outputs...12. ...... idf file is successfully written to : c:\ladybug\unnamed\EnergyPlus\unnamed.idf13. 14. Analysis is running!...15. c:\ladybug\unnamed\EnergyPlus\eplusout.csv16. ......
Done! Read below for errors and warnings:
17. 18. Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.3.0-6d97d074ea, YMD=2016.03.02 20:55,IDD_Version 8.3.019. 20. ** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.21. 22. ************* Beginning Zone Sizing Calculations23. 24. ** Warning ** GetInternalHeatGains: People="CLASSROOMOFFICEPEOPLE", Activity Level Schedule Name values25. 26. ** ~~~ ** fall outside typical range [70,1000] W/person for Thermal Comfort Reporting.27. 28. ** ~~~ ** Odd comfort values may result; Schedule="SCHOCCUPANCYSCHEDULE".29. 30. ** ~~~ ** Entered min/max range=[0.0,1.0] W/person.31. 32. ** Warning ** Calculated design heating load for zone=CLASSROOM is zero.33. 34. ** ~~~ ** Check Sizing:Zone and ZoneControl:Thermostat inputs.35. 36. ** Severe ** UpdateZoneSizing: Cooling supply air temperature (calculated) within 2C of zone temperature37. 38. ** ~~~ ** ...check zone thermostat set point and design supply air temperatures39. 40. ** ~~~ ** ...zone name = CLASSROOM41. 42. ** ~~~ ** ...design sensible cooling load = 25499.10 W43. 44. ** ~~~ ** ...thermostat set point temp = 0.000 C45. 46. ** ~~~ ** ...zone temperature = 15.334 C47. 48. ** ~~~ ** ...supply air temperature = 15.000 C49. 50. ** ~~~ ** ...temperature difference = -0.33433 C51. 52. ** ~~~ ** ...calculated volume flow rate = 197273.21341 m3/s53. 54. ** ~~~ ** ...calculated mass flow rate = 237634.19357 kg/s55. 56. ** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a plant sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Plant object input. SimulationControl Plant Sizing option ignored.57. 58. ************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity59. 60. ************* All Branches passed integrity testing61. 62. ************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity63. 64. ************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing65. 66. ************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity67. 68. ************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing69. 70. ************* No node connection errors were found.71. 72. ************* Beginning Simulation73. 74. ************* Simulation Error Summary *************75. 76. ** Warning ** The following Report Variables were requested but not generated77. 78. ** ~~~ ** because IDF did not contain these elements or misspelled variable name -- check .rdd file79. 80. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly81. 82. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly83. 84. ************* Key=*, VarName=CHILLER ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly85. 86. ************* Key=*, VarName=BOILER HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly87. 88. ************* Key=*, VarName=FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly89. 90. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE VENTILATION FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly91. 92. ************* Key=*, VarName=EARTH TUBE FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly93. 94. ************* Key=*, VarName=PUMP ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly95. 96. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE VENTILATION TOTAL HEAT LOSS ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly97. 98. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE VENTILATION TOTAL HEAT GAIN ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly99. 100. ************* Key=*, VarName=EARTH TUBE ZONE SENSIBLE COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly101. 102. ************* Key=*, VarName=EARTH TUBE ZONE SENSIBLE HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly103. 104. ************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.105. 106. ************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 3 Warning; 1 Severe Errors.107. 108. ************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 5 Warning; 1 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 4.65sec109.…
component I just used different components and GH tools to do the same - and this become part of my short paper submission for SimAUD 2016). My solution compares the height of the same points of different solar envelope and then chose the lowest one. I read about the improvement you are working on and it is good but I think it is not yet what I need (or how the solar envelope tool could be more complete).
What I need is a solar envelope that would guarantee on different facades with different orientations (the example I sent you) a certain amount of direct sunlight, say 4h per day in a given period for example all the month of June at 60°N. So to guarantee the south facing facade I should chose the vectors from 10 to 14. But these are not ok for all the other facades because in this timeframe the East and West facing facades get only 2 hours and the North get 0 hours.
So the fist step would be have the possibility to chose different sun vectors for different facades. For the example I did (the 4 hours in June at 60°N) the south facing facade would need from 10 to 14, the East facing for example from 8 to 12, the West facing facade from 12 to 16 and the North facing facade from 6 to 8 and from 18 to 20.
If I would chose a single longer time frame that could get all these hours, from 8 to 20 then the resulting solar envelope would result probably smaller than the sum of the four solar envelopes.
But this is not complete yet. I mean the use of different sun vectors on different facades. The reason is that for example when I chose the sun vectors from 8 to 12 for the four hours on the East facing facade how do I know that the sun hit on the facade in that time frame or maybe it is obstructed by surrounding buildings? Since the sun at 60°N (where I live) in June rise at around 3.15 then maybe for that specific facade the sun hit from 4 to 8 and not from 8 to 12.
I did an extreme case talking about 60°N and that maybe the sun hit on a facade at 4 instead than 12, but it is just to make understand the logic. My suggestion for a more advanced solar envelope it should be integrated with the Sunlight Hours tool of ladybug. So the input should not be the sun vectors because I don't know when the sun hit on the facade but the input should be just the desired number of hours and the possibility to specify different number of hours for each facade. Then this last component that sum different solar envelope (I didn't use it yet but I understood what it does) should be integrated yes so the result would be one single solar envelope more likely using the lowest points (the highest I don't understand what for).
Let me know what you think!
…
SiTI - Politecnico di Torino + ETH Computational Assessment Workshop at ETH - ValueLab - March 20, 2012 Assessment of 3 scenarios on the development of the F...
emid=0
and I've been having some interesting discussion with Nick Cole on this thread about related issues:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/kangaroo/forum/topics/getting-spring-tension-out-of
…
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, etc
In addition to the components in the attached file, I have also tried using Cull Index but that did not do much. I tried using a number slider set to whole numbers with the range equal to the values I have set up in the integer, but it just increases the size by 1 every time. Any help on steps in the right direction would be great thanks.…
t case point 3 should be able to move from 20 to 33
so in other word
pt 3 depends on pt 2
the problem is if i only have sliders
pt2 could be 20
and pt 3 could be 20, that is higher than 33
so the loft loops in itself
gracias por tu ayuda
salu2
m…
i delete the curves from the first list with the same positions from the second list?
i don´t want to merge the lists and remove just the duplicates!
…
Added by Rane Makdasi at 8:19am on January 30, 2012
which doesn't exist in the actual problem spec. If galapagos is allowed to change the column position in all possible directions, it is less likely to get stuck in some local optimum.
Let's assume that (all other things being equal) column 20 would yield the best possible answer. The current state of the system though is at column 26, which is pretty good too, just not as good. Galapagos is more likely to 'mutate' the state a little bit instead of a lot, so it'll explore the columns near 26. However 20 isn't near 26 at all, only 25 and 27 are nearby, and maybe 24 and 28. But they'll all worse answers, so after sampling in those directions GP will abandon that as fruitless.
If however you specify the columns using two variables, then the columns near 26 are 20, 25, 27 and 32. That's a far richer space to explore which much better approximates the real problem.…
I would now like to do is "combine" (only count once) the panels that are stacked vertically between the domain. (I've only got 3 surfaces selected to cut down on the confusion)The domain is the horizontal lines on the object to the ground plane. so Level 1 is 0-8'-7 3/4". Level 2 is 8'-7 3/4" - 15'-3 3/4". ect.
The approach is that the panels that are stacked on top of each other have the same x,y coordinate so they can be separated and counted as 1 instance in the final count.
I started trying to deconstruct the points and create sets of each x and y value but I've got no idea where to go from there. Any have any ideas?
Excel File being referenced looks like this:
Ground
0
1
8.6458
2
15.0625
3
22.375
4
28.5
5
35.333
6
42.2708
…